Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    GREG        ABBOTT
    August 9, 2011
    The Honorable Mike Jackson                              Opinion No. GA-0875
    Chair, Committee on Economic Development
    Texas State Senate                                      Re: Use of the judicial fund created by section
    Post Office Box 12068                                   21.006 of the Government Code (RQ-0951-GA)
    Austin, Texas 78711-2068
    Dear Senator Jackson:
    On behalf of the Harris County Civil Courts, you ask if the judicial fund created by Texas
    Government Code, section 21.006, "can be used to offset a statutory probate court's reduction in'
    funding by the county commissioners' court.'"
    The judicial fund is "a separate fund in the state treasury to be administered by the
    comptroller." TEX. Gov'r CODE ANN. § 21.006 (West 2004). The Legislature created the judicial
    fund to "be used only for court-related purposes for the support of the judicial branch of this state."
    Id.; see Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0376 (2001) at 1 (concluding that compensation of court
    personnel is a court-related purpose). Numerous provisions within the Government Code require
    various Texas courts to collect court costs and fees and deposit them into the state judicial fund. See,
    e.g., TEX. Gov'r CODE ANN. §§ 51.005 (West 2005) (fees and costs for the Texas Supreme Court),
    51.702(d) (West Supp. 2010) (fees in statutory county courts).
    Under section 51.704 of the Government Code, the clerks of statutory probate courts must
    collect a "$40 filing fee in each probate, guardianship, mental health, or civil case filed in the court."
    
    Id. § 51.704(a)
    (West Supp. 2010). Each statutory probate court's clerk sends the collected fees to
    the comptroller, who must deposit them into the state judicial fund. 
    Id. § 51.
    704(c). Under a
    separate provision of the Government Code, the state compensates "each county that collects the
    additional fees under Section 51.704 in an amount equal to $40,000 for each statutory probate court
    judge in the county." 
    Id. § 25.00211(a)
    (West 2004); see also 
    id. § 25.0022(e)
    (West Supp. 2010)
    (requiring the state, through judicial fund allocations, to pay an additional $5,000 for each presiding
    judge of the statutory probate courts). This amount is "paid to the county treasury for deposit in the
    contributions fund created under Section 25.00213 in equal monthly installments from funds
    appropriated from the judicial fund." 
    Id. § 25.00211(b)
    (West Supp. 2010).
    'Letter from Honorable Mike Jackson, Chair, Senate Committee on Economic Development, to Honorable Greg
    Abbott, Attorney General of Texas at 1 (Mar. 8, 2011), https:!!www.oag.state.tx.us!opiniindexJq.shtml ("Request
    Letter").
    The Honorable Mike Jackson - Page 2            (GA-0875)
    At the end of the fiscal year, the comptroller calculates the amounts deposited in the state
    judicial fund by the counties under section 51.704 and the sum of the amounts paid to the counties
    under sections 25.00211 and 25.0022. 
    Id. § 25.00212(a).
    If the amount deposited by all counties
    under section 51.704 exceeds the amount returned to all counties under sections 25.00211 and
    25.0022, the comptroller remits the excess funds proportionately to each county that, under section
    51.704, deposited a greater amount in the judicial fund than the amount that county received under
    section 25.00211. !d. When the comptroller remits the excess funds, those dollars are paid into the
    county's contributions fund. [d. § 25.00212(b).
    The Legislature requires that money allocated from the state judicial fund into a county's
    contributions fund "be used only for court-related purposes for the support of the statutory
    probate courts in the county." [d. § 25.002l3(b). Beyond this requirement, we find no statutory
    restrictions on how the funds may be used. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0340 (2005) at 6 ("The
    commissioners court is authorized to make reasonable decisions as to whether a particular
    expenditure is for court-related purposes, subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion.").
    However, "[a] county may not reduce the amount offunds provided for the support ofthe statutory
    probate courts in the county because of the availability of funds from the county's contributions
    fund." TEx. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 25.00213(c) (West Supp. 2010). Neither your request letter nor
    the letter from the Harris County Probate Court details the nature of the specific county funding
    reductions for the statutory probate courts, but by statute a county may not reduce funding because
    a judicial fund allocation is available to offset the reduction. Further, a county may not use state
    judicial fund allocations in any manner that contravenes the requirements established by statute.
    The Honorable Mike Jackson - Page 3          (GA-0875)
    SUMMARY
    The Legislature requires that state judicial fund dollars
    allocated to a county's contributions fund be used only for court-
    related purposes for the support of the statutory probate courts in the
    county. Beyond this requirement, we find no statutory restrictions on
    how the funds may be used. However, a county may not reduce the
    amount of funds provided for the support of the statutory probate
    courts in the county because of the availability of funds from the
    county's contribution fund. A county may not use the allocated
    judicial funds contrary to these statutory requirements.
    Very truly yours,
    OTT
    Attorney General of Texas
    DANIEL T. HODGE
    First Assistant Attorney General
    DAVID J. SCHENCK
    Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
    JASON BOATRIGHT
    Chair, Opinion Committee
    Virginia K. Hoelscher
    Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
    

Document Info

Docket Number: GA-0875

Judges: Greg Abbott

Filed Date: 7/2/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017